The Value of Being Discrete: The Differential and Causal Effects of Positive Affect and Discrete Positive Emotions on Organ Donor Registration Outcomes

Can Happiness and Sadness Overcome Organ Donation Barriers Following Exposure to Radio Ads?

Concerns related to bodily integrity, medical mistrust, superstition, and disgust with respect to organ transplantation remain commonly cited barriers among African American, Caucasian, and Hispanic non-donors. The current study examined two narrative strategies for mitigating these barriers by eliciting feelings of happiness or sadness. African American, Caucasian, and Hispanic non-donors (N = 576) were randomly assigned to a radio ad that communicated either a recipient narrative or a waiting list narrative. As expected, the recipient narrative elicited greater feelings of happiness whereas the waiting list narrative aroused greater feelings of sadness. Moderated mediation analyses revealed models in which happiness, not sadness, was the mediator, such that the narrative frame was associated with ad persuasiveness. Additionally, only medical mistrust interacted with happiness to predict ad persuasiveness The results are discussed with an emphasis on message design strategies to employ among reluctant adult African American, Caucasian, and Hispanic potential donors.

Respect, interaction, immediacy and the role community plays in registering an organ donation decision

Background

Registering a donation decision is fundamental to increasing the number of people who donate the organs and tissues essential for transplantation, but the number of registered organ donors is insufficient to meet this demand. Most people in Australia support organ donation, but only a third have registered their decision on the Australian Organ Donor Register (AODR). We addressed this paradox by investigating how feelings of community, engendered through an ethic of hospitality and care and a non-proselytizing dialogue about organ donation, facilitated the decision to register.

Methods

An Immediate Registration Opportunity was set up in a large public hospital in NSW, Australia. The public was approached and invited to engage in an open, respectful dialogic interaction that met people where their beliefs were and allowed their concerns and fears about donation to be discussed. This included a survey that measured positive and negative beliefs about organ donation, mood, atmosphere, and feelings of community coupled with an on-the-spot opportunity to register their donation decision.

Results

Over four days, we interacted with 357 participants; 75.5% (210) of eligible-to-register participants registered on the AODR. Generalized Structural Equation Modelling highlighted that as connection to community increased, so did the salience of positive beliefs about organ donation. Positive beliefs, in turn, were negatively correlated with negative beliefs about donation and, as the strength of negative beliefs decreased, the probability of registration on the AODR increased. Participants who registered on the AODR reported stronger connection to the broader community than participants who did not register.

Conclusion

A respectful non-judgmental interaction that allows beliefs and concerns about organ donation to be discussed, coupled with an immediate opportunity to register, encouraged registration. Within this framework, feelings of belonging to a community were a key determinant that enabled many to make the decision to register.

Identifying behaviour change techniques within randomized trials of interventions promoting deceased organ donation registration

OBJECTIVE

Increasing deceased organ donation registration may increase the number of available organs for transplant to help save lives. This study aimed to identify which behaviour change techniques (BCTs; or 'active ingredients') are reported within randomized trials of interventions promoting deceased organ donation registration and of those, which are associated with a larger intervention effect.

METHODS

We conducted a secondary analysis of 45 trials included in a Cochrane systematic review of deceased organ donation registration interventions. Two researchers used the BCT Taxonomy v1 to independently code intervention content in all trial groups. Outcome data were pooled and we used meta-regression to explore associations between individual and combinations of recurring BCTs and effect on registration intention and/or registration behaviour.

RESULTS

A total of 27 different BCTs (mean = 3.7, range = 1-9) were identified in intervention groups across the 45 trials. The five most common BCTs were: 'Information about health consequences' (71%); 'Instruction on how to perform the behaviour' (47%); 'Salience of consequences' (40%); 'Adding objects to the environment' (28%); and 'Credible source' (27%). Comparator groups in 20/45 trials also included identifiable BCTs (n = 12, mean = 3.1, range = 1-7). Meta-regression revealed that a combination of the three most common BCTs was associated with a larger intervention effect size for registration behaviour (k = 8, β = .19, p = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

Trials of deceased organ donation registration interventions focus predominantly on providing information, instruction, and a means to register. While potentially effective, a much wider set of possible BCTs could be leveraged to address known barriers to registration.

Interventions for increasing solid organ donor registration

BACKGROUND

A solution for increasing the number of available organs for transplantation is to encourage more individuals to register a commitment for deceased organ donation. However, the percentage of the population registered for organ donation remains low in many countries.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of various interventions used to increase deceased organ donor registration.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 11 August 2020 through contact with an Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster RCTs and quasi-RCTs of interventions to promote deceased organ donor registration. We included studies if they measured self-reported or verified donor registration, intention to donate, intention to register a decision or number of individuals signing donor cards as outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed retrieved studies and extracted data from included studies. We assessed studies for risk of bias. We obtained summary estimates of effect using a random-effects model and expressed results as risk ratios (RR) (95% confidence intervals; CI) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD; 95% CI) or standardised mean difference (SMD; 95% CI) for continuous outcomes. In multi-arm trials, data were pooled to create single pair-wise comparisons. Analyses were stratified by specific intervention setting where available.

MAIN RESULTS

Our search strategy identified 46 studies (47 primary articles, including one abstract) comprising 24 parallel RCTs, 19 cluster RCTs and 3 quasi-RCTs. Sample sizes ranged from 138 to 1,085,292 (median = 514). A total of 16 studies measured registration behaviour, 27 measured intention to register/donate and three studies measured both registration behaviour and intention to register. Interventions were delivered in a variety of different settings: schools (14 studies), driver's motor vehicle (DMV) centres (5), mail-outs (4), primary care centres (3), workplaces (1), community settings (7) and general public (12). Interventions were highly varied in terms of their content and included strategies such as educational sessions and videos, leveraging peer leaders, staff training, message framing, and priming. Most studies were rated as having high or unclear risk of bias for random sequence generation and allocation concealment and low risk for the remainder of the domains. Data from 34/46 studies (74%) were available for meta-analysis. Low certainty evidence showed organ donation registration interventions had a small overall effect on improving registration behaviour (16 studies, 1,294,065 participants: RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.43, I2 = 84%), intention to register/donate (dichotomous) (10 studies, 10,838 participants: RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.42, I2 = 91%) and intention to register/donate (continuous) (9 studies, 3572 participants: SMD 0.23, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.36, I2 = 67%). Classroom-based interventions delivered in a lecture format by individuals from the transplant community may be effective at increasing intention to register/donate (3 studies, 675 participants: RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.55, I² = 0%). Community interventions targeting specific ethnic groups were generally effective at increasing registration rates (k = 5, n = 4186; RR 2.14, 95% CI 1.35 to 3.40, I² = 85%), although heterogeneity was high. In particular, interventions delivered in the community by trained peer-leaders appear to be effective (3 studies, 3819 participant: RR 2.09, 95% CI 1.08 to 4.06, I² = 87%), although again, the data lacked robustness. There was some evidence that framing messages (e.g. anticipated regret) and priming individuals (e.g. reciprocity) in a certain way may increase intention to register/donate, however, few studies measured this effect on actual registration. Overall, the studies varied significantly in terms of design, setting, content and delivery. Selection bias was evident and a quarter of the studies could not be included in the meta-analysis due to incomplete outcome data reporting. No adverse events were reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In our review, we identified a variety of approaches used to increase organ donor registration including school-based educational sessions and videos, leveraging peer leaders in the community, DMV staff training, targeted messaging and priming. The variability in outcome measures used and incompleteness in reporting meant that most data could not be combined for analysis. When data were combined, overall effect sizes were small in favour of intervention groups over controls, however, there was significant variability in the data. There was some evidence that leveraging peer-leaders in the community to deliver organ donation education may improve registration rates and classroom-based education from credible individuals (i.e. members of the transplant community) may improve intention to register/donate, however, there is no clear evidence favouring any particular approach. There was mixed evidence for simple, low-intensity interventions utilising message framing and priming. However, it is likely that interest in these strategies will persist due to their reach and scalability. Further research is therefore required to adequately address the question of the most effective interventions for increasing deceased organ donor registration.